Not discouraged by their recent pimp slap by California’s Attorney General, Prop 8’s supporters are trying another “Hail Mary” courtroom tactic to get Judge Vaughn Walker’s landmark ruling against the anti-gay law thrown out. They say he should have recused himself from the case because he has a conflict of interest as a gay man who might one day want to get married as well. Hmmm… very “interesting.” Wonderfully, the New York Times is having none of their foolishness:
Their editorial today puts it succinctly:
The claim is bogus. It is well established that personal characteristics, like race, sex, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, do not by themselves invoke the rule that judges must step aside if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Our justice system relies on trusting members of the nation’s diverse bench to put aside their personal characteristics and abide by their duty of even-handedness. Any other approach would invite foolish and unacceptable results — female judges being kept from hearing rape or sexual discrimination cases, or black judges from hearing cases involving racial bias or civil rights.
They go on to say that by Yes on 8’s logic, even a straight married judge would have to recuse herself from the case because of their personal conflict of interest in trying to “protect traditional marriage.” Ahahaha!! You have to love Yes on 8’s desperate tactics. It’s like watching a kid who just peed on himself try to cover it up by spilling water all over his pants—adorable!